Same Sex Marriage Vs. Convenience Abortion - A Question Of Priority And Societal Harm

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/08/the-case-against-easier-abortion-laws?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/04/news-of-the-church/churchs-stand-on-abortion-given-in-new-filmstrip?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/03/news-of-the-church?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/the-sanctity-of-life?lang=eng

If you need more, they are easy enough to find by search for abortion using google site for lds.org and then looking at 70s dates (it only goes back to 71).

Edited October 11, 2015 by Calm

[Five Solas]

Publishing in LDS Church-owned magazines for LDS Church-members isn't exactly speaking up, Calm.  Or at least it's not speaking to any material non-LDS audience. 

 

There appears to be an *enormous* difference between how the LDS Church viewed the abortion rights contest in the late 1960's to early 1970's (culminating with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision) and the very externally-facing, public campaign the LDS Church engaged against Same Sex Marriage in 2008. 

 

thesometimesaint's CFR stands & you haven't answered it. 

 

Sorry, Calm.   

 

--Erik

 

[california boy]

Publishing in LDS Church-owned magazines for LDS Church-members isn't exactly speaking up, Calm.  Or at least it's not speaking to any material non-LDS audience. 

 

There appears to be an *enormous* difference between how the LDS Church viewed the abortion rights contest in the late 1960's to early 1970's (culminating with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision) and the very externally-facing, public campaign the LDS Church engaged against Same Sex Marriage in 2008. 

 

thesometimesaint's CFR stands & you haven't answered it. 

 

Sorry, Calm.   

 

--Erik

I have to agree. Church members spent 40 million dollars and 70% of the manpower to pass Prop 9.  All of that campaign was directed toward non members.  Show us the effort the church made toward non members that was comparably loud and clear.

 

The CFR still stands.  You haven't answered it.

[Calm]

Not a problem, I now understand you guys were looking for something more than just an expression of interest.

Willamsmith should do his own work anyway.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/08/the-case-against-easier-abortion-laws?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/04/news-of-the-church/churchs-stand-on-abortion-given-in-new-filmstrip?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/03/news-of-the-church?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/the-sanctity-of-life?lang=eng

If you need more, they are easy enough to find by search for abortion using google site for lds.org and then looking at 70s dates (it only goes back to 71).

 

The Church has been consistent on the subject of abortion. It is permissible under the rare conditions of the life and/or health of the mother, in cases of rape, and/or incest, and the non-viability of the baby upon birth.

Edited October 12, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Five Solas]

...

Willamsmith should do his own work anyway.

Hear, hear!

 

--Erik

[Meadowchik]

CFR

 

"In the 50 consecutive semi-annual general conferences between October 1970 and April 1995, LDS Church Leaders delivered more than 75 general conference sermons addressing the practice and legalization of abortion. In those critical twenty-five years, during which the novel legal rule of abortion-on-demand was being created, imposed, established, and expanded, and during which the practice of abortion was becoming widespread and cultural acceptance was growing, the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed unequivocal opposition to permissive abortion in every general conference; not a single semi-annual conference passed without some direct criticism of or condemnation of permissive abortion by the General Authorities." 

 

 

and

 

"March 7, 1974, just a little over a year after Roe decision, a designated representative of the Church testified before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. David L. McKay, a son of the former President of the Church, David. O. McKay, and then-President of the LDS mission in New York and New England, presented "a statement on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints," which included the recent LDS First Presidency statement opposing abortion as "one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day," and he concluded: "The church is therefore against the legalization of abortion.“

      Statement of David L. McKay in Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., on S.J. Res. 119 and S.J. Res. 130 at 286, 318 (March 7, 1974)."

 

 

 

both quotes found in "A Short History of Roe v. Wade, Abortion in the USA, and of the LDS Church Response to Roe"

Lynn D. Wardle

The Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law

Brigham Young University

 

Mini-Symposium on Roe at 40

J. Reuben Clark Law School

Brigham Young University

January 22, 2013

 

link: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4443836/

 

 

More quotes by Church leaders against abortion in this presentation, including those made before RvW.

 

But, I think that statements in 50 general conferences and testifying before the US Senate already qualifies as speaking out.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

Publishing in LDS Church-owned magazines for LDS Church-members isn't exactly speaking up, Calm.  Or at least it's not speaking to any material non-LDS audience. 

 

There appears to be an *enormous* difference between how the LDS Church viewed the abortion rights contest in the late 1960's to early 1970's (culminating with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision) and the very externally-facing, public campaign the LDS Church engaged against Same Sex Marriage in 2008. 

 

thesometimesaint's CFR stands & you haven't answered it. 

 

Sorry, Calm.   

 

--Erik

 

First, show us a time when a state was voting on abortion legalization before a federal law allowing it was put into place.

 

Prop 8 was not a court decision, it was the voters' choice, where, morally, and legally, groups among the community were free to voice their support or opposition or try to campaign for or against the proposition.  If you are going to make a fair comparison, look for similar venues, or give due consideration to the difference of venues.  Did the LDS Church wage a campaign against abortion like with Prop 8?  Not exactly like it, but nobody put abortion up to a vote.  Did the LDS Church speak up in a venue where such an issue could be legally decided (through the amendment process, for example)? Yes, in 1974 before the US Senate. 

[Meadowchik]

Also, if we consider it's anti-abortion stance as part of its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, we find more examples of LDS Church opposition to abortion via opposition to the ERA.

[Five Solas]

Appreciate the research, Meadowchick.  You found a public statement (i.e., something besides a church-owned publication or conference) by a regional LDS Church representative made a year after Roe v. Wade to a Congressional sub-committee. 

 

Forgive me, but it seems modest stacked next to the highly public campaign the LDS Church undertook to fight SSM.  That said, I fear my response will only serve to demonstrate the church's critics can never be satisfied--or something along that line.  Wait for it...

;0)

 

Thanks again,

 

--Erik

 

[Meadowchik]

Appreciate the research, Meadowchick.  You found a public statement (i.e., something besides a church-owned publication or conference) by a regional LDS Church representative made a year after Roe v. Wade to a Congressional sub-committee. 

 

Forgive me, but it seems modest stacked next to the highly public campaign the LDS Church undertook to fight SSM.  That said, I fear my response will only serve to demonstrate the church's critics can never be satisfied--or something along that line.  Wait for it...

;0)

 

Thanks again,

 

--Erik

 

You are welcome...

 

If it seems inadequate to anyone, refer to post #133, then get back to me.  Logic calls for reasonable comparisons.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

It looks to me that, if wanting to compare prop 8 to Roe, we have to consider also the political methodologies having changed over time.  Also, the internet has made documentation much easier in real time.  However, if we look, I think we'll find much more on Mormons and the abortion issue during past decades. 

 

For example it was easy for me to find this:

 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=shTmKEFqqXgC&lpg=PA217&ots=kioO6yUOT3&dq=abortion%20mormon%20campaigns&hl=fr&pg=PA217#v=onepage&q=abortion%20mormon%20campaigns&f=true

 

Check page 217, "The effects of Mormon and Catholic concern about the abortion issue in the state legislature in previous years have been discussed (Richardson and Fox, 1972, 1975.)"

[thesometimesaint]

Here is what the Church itself says.

SEE https://www.mormon.org/faq/church-position-on-abortion

[california boy]

First, show us a time when a state was voting on abortion legalization before a federal law allowing it was put into place.

 

Prop 8 was not a court decision, it was the voters' choice, where, morally, and legally, groups among the community were free to voice their support or opposition or try to campaign for or against the proposition.  If you are going to make a fair comparison, look for similar venues, or give due consideration to the difference of venues.  Did the LDS Church wage a campaign against abortion like with Prop 8?  Not exactly like it, but nobody put abortion up to a vote.  Did the LDS Church speak up in a venue where such an issue could be legally decided (through the amendment process, for example)? Yes, in 1974 before the US Senate. 

 

 

Are you serious?  Abortion rights have been put up for a vote dozens of times.  If the church wanted to, it could have been a major political force in restricting abortion.   No call to arms from the church.  No raising 40 million dollars to try and pass these ballot measures.  To pretend that the church has fought against abortion like they fought against gay marriage is delusional at best. 

 

Even before Row vs Wade was passed, states were voting on abortion rights.   For example the state of Washington in 1970

 

Here are a few of the ballot measures that have been put up for a vote.  Now can you provide ANY documentation where the church played a big part in any of these ballot measures, raising millions of dollars from the members and asking them to give all they could of their time and money on these measures?

 

Face the actual facts.  It is only the gays wanting their civil right to marry that got the church rilled up.  Abortion only gets speeches directed at it's members.  Yeah not quite the same. 

 

Alaska

1. Alaska Limiting State Funding of Abortions Initiative, Measure 6 (1982)
2. Alaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (August 2010)

Arizona

1. Arizona Initiative to Ban Abortion, Proposition 110 (1992)

Arkansas

1. Arkansas Abortion Restriction and Public Funding Ban, Proposed Amendment 3 (1988)
2. Arkansas Limitation on Public Funding for Abortion, Proposed Amendment 65 (1986)

California

1. California "Innocent Human Life" Initiative (2016)
2. California "Secret Abortions" Initiative (2016)
3. California Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (2016)
4. California Proposition 4, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2008)
5. California Proposition 73, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2005)
6. California Proposition 85, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2006)
7. California Secret Abortions Initiative (2016)

Colorado

1. Colorado Abortion Funding, Initiative 7 (1988)
2. Colorado Abortion Funding Prohibition Amendment, Initiative 3 (1984)
3. Colorado Ban on Public Funding of Abortion (1984)
4. Colorado Definition of "Personhood" Initiative, Amendment 67 (2014)
5. Colorado Definition of Person, Initiative 48 (2008)
6. Colorado Fetal Personhood, Initiative 62 (2010)
7. Colorado Parental Notification for Abortion, Initiative 12 (1998)
8. Colorado Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Initiative 11 (1998)
9. Colorado Requirements for Consent to Abortion, Initiative 25 (2000)

Florida

1. Florida Abortion, Amendment 6 (2012)
2. Florida Pregnancy Notification, Amendment 1 (2004)

Maine

1. Maine Parental Consent for Abortion Initiative (2015)
2. Maine Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Question 1 (1999)

Maryland

1. Maryland Abortion Law Revision, Question 6 (1992)

Massachusetts

1. Massachusetts Public Funding of Abortion Initiative (2016)
2. Massachusetts State Legislature to Regulate Abortion, Question 1 (1986)

Michigan

1. Michigan Abortion Legalization Initiative, Proposal B (1972)
2. Michigan Personhood Amendment (2006)
3. Michigan Welfare Abortion Fund Referendum, Proposal A (1988)

Mississippi

1. Mississippi Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Amendment, Initiative 26 (2011)

Missouri

1. Missouri No Public Funds for Stem Cell Research Initiative (2010)

Montana

1. Montana Parental Notification Measure, LR-120 (2012)
2. Montana Personhood Definition Amendment (2016)

Nevada

1. Nevada Abortion Statute Referendum, Question 7 (1990)

New Jersey

1. New Jersey Parental Notification for Pregnancy Medical Treatment Amendment (2014)

North Dakota

1. North Dakota "Life Begins at Conception" Amendment, Measure 1 (2014)
2. North Dakota Abortion Initiative, Measure 1 (1972)

Ohio

1. Ohio "Personhood" Initiative (2013)

Oklahoma

1. Oklahoma State Question 642 (1992)

Oregon

1. Oregon Ballot Measure 43, Parental Notification for a Minor's Abortion (2006)
2. Oregon Expenditures on Abortion Services, Measure 7 (1978)
3. Oregon Limited State Funding of Abortions, Measure 6 (1986)
4. Oregon Notice to Minor’s Parents Before an Abortion, Measure 10 (1990)
5. Oregon Prohibition of Abortion and Exceptions, Measure 8 (1990)

Rhode Island

1. Rhode Island Paramount Right to Life, Constitutional Amendment 14 (1986)

South Carolina

1. South Carolina Fetal Personhood Amendment (2016)

South Dakota

1. South Dakota Abortion Ban, Initiative 11 (2008)
2. South Dakota Abortion Ban, Referendum 6 (2006)

Tennessee

1. Tennessee Legislative Powers Regarding Abortion, Amendment 1 (2014)

Washington

1. Washington Abortion Rights, Initiative 120 (1991)
2. Washington Early-term Abortion, Referendum 20 (1970)
3. Washington Late-term Abortion, Initiative 694 (1998)
4. Washington No Public Funding of Abortions, Initiative 471 (1984)

Wyoming

1. Wyoming Abortion Restriction, Initiative 3 (1994)

[rockpond]

 

Are you serious?  Abortion rights have been put up for a vote dozens of times.  If the church wanted to, it could have been a major political force in restricting abortion.   No call to arms from the church.  No raising 40 million dollars to try and pass these ballot measures.  To pretend that the church has fought against abortion like they fought against gay marriage is delusional at best. 

 

Even before Row vs Wade was passed, states were voting on abortion rights.   For example the state of Washington in 1970

 

Here are a few of the ballot measures that have been put up for a vote.  Now can you provide ANY documentation where the church played a big part in any of these ballot measures, raising millions of dollars from the members and asking them to give all they could of their time and money on these measures?

 

Face the actual facts.  It is only the gays wanting their civil right to marry that got the church rilled up.  Abortion only gets speeches directed at it's members.  Yeah not quite the same. 

 

Alaska

1. Alaska Limiting State Funding of Abortions Initiative, Measure 6 (1982)
2. Alaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (August 2010)

Arizona

1. Arizona Initiative to Ban Abortion, Proposition 110 (1992)

Arkansas

1. Arkansas Abortion Restriction and Public Funding Ban, Proposed Amendment 3 (1988)
2. Arkansas Limitation on Public Funding for Abortion, Proposed Amendment 65 (1986)

California

1. California "Innocent Human Life" Initiative (2016)
2. California "Secret Abortions" Initiative (2016)
3. California Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (2016)
4. California Proposition 4, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2008)
5. California Proposition 73, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2005)
6. California Proposition 85, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2006)
7. California Secret Abortions Initiative (2016)

Colorado

1. Colorado Abortion Funding, Initiative 7 (1988)
2. Colorado Abortion Funding Prohibition Amendment, Initiative 3 (1984)
3. Colorado Ban on Public Funding of Abortion (1984)
4. Colorado Definition of "Personhood" Initiative, Amendment 67 (2014)
5. Colorado Definition of Person, Initiative 48 (2008)
6. Colorado Fetal Personhood, Initiative 62 (2010)
7. Colorado Parental Notification for Abortion, Initiative 12 (1998)
8. Colorado Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Initiative 11 (1998)
9. Colorado Requirements for Consent to Abortion, Initiative 25 (2000)

Florida

1. Florida Abortion, Amendment 6 (2012)
2. Florida Pregnancy Notification, Amendment 1 (2004)

Maine

1. Maine Parental Consent for Abortion Initiative (2015)
2. Maine Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Question 1 (1999)

Maryland

1. Maryland Abortion Law Revision, Question 6 (1992)

Massachusetts

1. Massachusetts Public Funding of Abortion Initiative (2016)
2. Massachusetts State Legislature to Regulate Abortion, Question 1 (1986)

Michigan

1. Michigan Abortion Legalization Initiative, Proposal B (1972)
2. Michigan Personhood Amendment (2006)
3. Michigan Welfare Abortion Fund Referendum, Proposal A (1988)

Mississippi

1. Mississippi Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Amendment, Initiative 26 (2011)

Missouri

1. Missouri No Public Funds for Stem Cell Research Initiative (2010)

Montana

1. Montana Parental Notification Measure, LR-120 (2012)
2. Montana Personhood Definition Amendment (2016)

Nevada

1. Nevada Abortion Statute Referendum, Question 7 (1990)

New Jersey

1. New Jersey Parental Notification for Pregnancy Medical Treatment Amendment (2014)

North Dakota

1. North Dakota "Life Begins at Conception" Amendment, Measure 1 (2014)
2. North Dakota Abortion Initiative, Measure 1 (1972)

Ohio

1. Ohio "Personhood" Initiative (2013)

Oklahoma

1. Oklahoma State Question 642 (1992)

Oregon

1. Oregon Ballot Measure 43, Parental Notification for a Minor's Abortion (2006)
2. Oregon Expenditures on Abortion Services, Measure 7 (1978)
3. Oregon Limited State Funding of Abortions, Measure 6 (1986)
4. Oregon Notice to Minor’s Parents Before an Abortion, Measure 10 (1990)
5. Oregon Prohibition of Abortion and Exceptions, Measure 8 (1990)

Rhode Island

1. Rhode Island Paramount Right to Life, Constitutional Amendment 14 (1986)

South Carolina

1. South Carolina Fetal Personhood Amendment (2016)

South Dakota

1. South Dakota Abortion Ban, Initiative 11 (2008)
2. South Dakota Abortion Ban, Referendum 6 (2006)

Tennessee

1. Tennessee Legislative Powers Regarding Abortion, Amendment 1 (2014)

Washington

1. Washington Abortion Rights, Initiative 120 (1991)
2. Washington Early-term Abortion, Referendum 20 (1970)
3. Washington Late-term Abortion, Initiative 694 (1998)
4. Washington No Public Funding of Abortions, Initiative 471 (1984)

Wyoming

1. Wyoming Abortion Restriction, Initiative 3 (1994)

 

 

I wish I could give you more than one rep point on this post.

 

Even if one concluded that the Church used CA's Prop 8 to "get its feet wet" with respect to political involvement... there have been over a dozen abortion votes that the Church could have jumped into since 2008.

 

Conclusions:  Either the Brethren really do feel that denying marital rights to gay couples is more important than preventing abortions OR they realized that the negative fallout from Prop 8 was undesirable and have decided to avoid it ever since 2008.

 

I'm hoping it's the latter.

[toon]

I'm LDS.  I support gay marriage.  And while I think abortion should be rare and resorted to as a last resort, I also believe the decision should largely rest with the mother -- that it's a decision government generally shouldn't be second guessing and, accordingly, that in most instances, abortion should be legal.

[Meadowchik]

 

Are you serious?  Abortion rights have been put up for a vote dozens of times.  If the church wanted to, it could have been a major political force in restricting abortion.   No call to arms from the church.  No raising 40 million dollars to try and pass these ballot measures.  To pretend that the church has fought against abortion like they fought against gay marriage is delusional at best. 

 

Even before Row vs Wade was passed, states were voting on abortion rights.   For example the state of Washington in 1970

 

Here are a few of the ballot measures that have been put up for a vote.  Now can you provide ANY documentation where the church played a big part in any of these ballot measures, raising millions of dollars from the members and asking them to give all they could of their time and money on these measures?

 

Face the actual facts.  It is only the gays wanting their civil right to marry that got the church rilled up.  Abortion only gets speeches directed at it's members.  Yeah not quite the same. 

 

Alaska

1. Alaska Limiting State Funding of Abortions Initiative, Measure 6 (1982)
2. Alaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (August 2010)

Arizona

1. Arizona Initiative to Ban Abortion, Proposition 110 (1992)

Arkansas

1. Arkansas Abortion Restriction and Public Funding Ban, Proposed Amendment 3 (1988)
2. Arkansas Limitation on Public Funding for Abortion, Proposed Amendment 65 (1986)

California

1. California "Innocent Human Life" Initiative (2016)
2. California "Secret Abortions" Initiative (2016)
3. California Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (2016)
4. California Proposition 4, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2008)
5. California Proposition 73, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2005)
6. California Proposition 85, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2006)
7. California Secret Abortions Initiative (2016)

Colorado

1. Colorado Abortion Funding, Initiative 7 (1988)
2. Colorado Abortion Funding Prohibition Amendment, Initiative 3 (1984)
3. Colorado Ban on Public Funding of Abortion (1984)
4. Colorado Definition of "Personhood" Initiative, Amendment 67 (2014)
5. Colorado Definition of Person, Initiative 48 (2008)
6. Colorado Fetal Personhood, Initiative 62 (2010)
7. Colorado Parental Notification for Abortion, Initiative 12 (1998)
8. Colorado Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Initiative 11 (1998)
9. Colorado Requirements for Consent to Abortion, Initiative 25 (2000)

Florida

1. Florida Abortion, Amendment 6 (2012)
2. Florida Pregnancy Notification, Amendment 1 (2004)

Maine

1. Maine Parental Consent for Abortion Initiative (2015)
2. Maine Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Question 1 (1999)

Maryland

1. Maryland Abortion Law Revision, Question 6 (1992)

Massachusetts

1. Massachusetts Public Funding of Abortion Initiative (2016)
2. Massachusetts State Legislature to Regulate Abortion, Question 1 (1986)

Michigan

1. Michigan Abortion Legalization Initiative, Proposal B (1972)
2. Michigan Personhood Amendment (2006)
3. Michigan Welfare Abortion Fund Referendum, Proposal A (1988)

Mississippi

1. Mississippi Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Amendment, Initiative 26 (2011)

Missouri

1. Missouri No Public Funds for Stem Cell Research Initiative (2010)

Montana

1. Montana Parental Notification Measure, LR-120 (2012)
2. Montana Personhood Definition Amendment (2016)

Nevada

1. Nevada Abortion Statute Referendum, Question 7 (1990)

New Jersey

1. New Jersey Parental Notification for Pregnancy Medical Treatment Amendment (2014)

North Dakota

1. North Dakota "Life Begins at Conception" Amendment, Measure 1 (2014)
2. North Dakota Abortion Initiative, Measure 1 (1972)

Ohio

1. Ohio "Personhood" Initiative (2013)

Oklahoma

1. Oklahoma State Question 642 (1992)

Oregon

1. Oregon Ballot Measure 43, Parental Notification for a Minor's Abortion (2006)
2. Oregon Expenditures on Abortion Services, Measure 7 (1978)
3. Oregon Limited State Funding of Abortions, Measure 6 (1986)
4. Oregon Notice to Minor’s Parents Before an Abortion, Measure 10 (1990)
5. Oregon Prohibition of Abortion and Exceptions, Measure 8 (1990)

Rhode Island

1. Rhode Island Paramount Right to Life, Constitutional Amendment 14 (1986)

South Carolina

1. South Carolina Fetal Personhood Amendment (2016)

South Dakota

1. South Dakota Abortion Ban, Initiative 11 (2008)
2. South Dakota Abortion Ban, Referendum 6 (2006)

Tennessee

1. Tennessee Legislative Powers Regarding Abortion, Amendment 1 (2014)

Washington

1. Washington Abortion Rights, Initiative 120 (1991)
2. Washington Early-term Abortion, Referendum 20 (1970)
3. Washington Late-term Abortion, Initiative 694 (1998)
4. Washington No Public Funding of Abortions, Initiative 471 (1984)

Wyoming

1. Wyoming Abortion Restriction, Initiative 3 (1994)

 

 

Please don't ignore the context of my remark, which was the opening sentence,

 

"First, show us a time when a state was voting on abortion legalization before a federal law allowing it was put into place."

 

Just the mere volume of what you posted of post-Roe initiatives should give a clue that there is a major difference in the two issues.  Thus, it would be folly to exactly compare them.

 

Look at your post and think about it that way.  We know that the country was embroiled in the gay marriage battle before the federal SCOTUS decision this last June, as compared to it being embroiled in the abortion battle ever since Roe V Wade.  Also, You have to consider the political energy invested for and against the ERA, too.

 

Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and so looking at both Roe v Wade and Prop 8 as isolated events is not intellectually honest, whether considering the LDS Church interaction with them or any other factor.

 

So, let's look at Washington in 1970.  According to the link you provided,

 

Because of their tragic stories, a group of Seattle residents launched a campaign to change the law and three years later, in 1970, Washington became one of only a handful of states to permit abortions in the early months of a pregnancy and the only one to enact its reformed law through a vote of the people.

 

 

So, if we go by this, we only have one date when the people voted to permit abortion before the landmark SCOTUS decision.  Shall I go look up the numbers on LDS membership in Washington in 1970 compared to California or do you still claim the two voting measures to be equivalent?  Just to give an idea, in 1970 total LDS Church membership, official tally, was roughly 3 million, but was nearly 14 million in 2008.

 

There was a Mormon presence opposing the 1970 Referendum 20 in Washington, by the way.  The newspaper article in the same link mentions a Mormon protestor.  However, neither the main linked article nor the one in the newspaper provide much detail about who made up opposition.  The article has this mention,

 

 

In May 1970, a statewide group that opposed the passage of R-20 was formed. It was named the Voice for the Unborn (VFU) and was led by Mrs. Alden Olsen. The other members were Mrs. Ahnquist, Mrs. Bennett, Kenneth VanDerhoef, David Warmuth, and Wes Holbein. It had the support of many Catholics and members of socially conservative Protestant churches.

 

 

But not much more detail about the opposition, or who made up those "socially conservative Protestant churches."

Edited October 14, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

I wish I could give you more than one rep point on this post.

 

Even if one concluded that the Church used CA's Prop 8 to "get its feet wet" with respect to political involvement... there have been over a dozen abortion votes that the Church could have jumped into since 2008.

 

Conclusions:  Either the Brethren really do feel that denying marital rights to gay couples is more important than preventing abortions OR they realized that the negative fallout from Prop 8 was undesirable and have decided to avoid it ever since 2008.

 

I'm hoping it's the latter.

 

Rarely in history is there only two ways of understanding something. 

 

As I discussed in my response to California Boy in post #142, there are many significant differences in the context of Roe v Wade and Proposition 8, between the political momentum on abortion and same-sex marriage.  I'm sure there are more differences than I can think of, as I am not a political historian, but I can think of several.  The sheer difference in numbers of members alone in 1970 compared to 2008 should be enough to give anyone pause before making a judgment call about the brethren's values at given times.  The ways the laws came about stand in stark contrast.  One could say that with ssm, Prop 8 was a clear, voters-focused, legal and public opinion tipping point, whereas it would be hard to argue that there was any single voter's-focused tipping point for the abortion issue.  It's like comparing a flood to rain. 

[rockpond]

One could say that with ssm, Prop 8 was a clear, voters-focused, legal and public opinion tipping point, whereas it would be hard to argue that there was any single voter's-focused tipping point for the abortion issue.  It's like comparing a flood to rain. 

 

How was Prop 8 a clear, voters-focused, legal and public opinion tipping point?

 

Unless one is of the mindset that our Church leaders ultimately desired to make state-recognized SSM the law of the land, Prop 8 was a huge mistake.

[Meadowchik]

How was Prop 8 a clear, voters-focused, legal and public opinion tipping point?

Unless one is of the mindset that our Church leaders ultimately desired to make state-recognized SSM the law of the land, Prop 8 was a huge mistake.

At the time, ssm in 2003 Massachusettes was easy to consider an anomaly. It took years for that "anomaly" to be seconded by California. Then the people tried to hold the court ruling back with Prop 8 itself.

So, Prop 8, if it failed, would be a major shift in political momentum. If it succeeded, however, would have represented the legal pathway for other states to follow in opposing ssm.

Cali was a state where all state-level rights were accessible to ss couples via civil unions. So, to many it represented a test. Could marriage-defined-as-man-and-woman-only be reproachable if gays had civil unions? As in, what's in a name?

For the LDS Church, Prop 8 was happenning to Utah's neighbor, one of the most populous states in the nation and a state frequently thought of as a testing ground for the rest of the country:

"As California, so goes the rest of the country..."

Personally as someone quite attuned to the ssm battle in the US between 2003 and 2015, Prop 8 was among the top 3 or 4 biggest publicized, analyzed legal events on ssm: Mass as the first state, the SCOTUS cases as accumulative, and Prop 8--the only one of the 3 where people voted. (DOMA is up there too but began with Clinton earlier.)

[rockpond]

At the time, ssm in 2003 Massachusettes was easy to consider an anomaly. It took years for that "anomaly" to be seconded by California. Then the people tried to hold the court ruling back with Prop 8 itself.

So, Prop 8, if it failed, would be a major shift in political momentum. If it succeeded, however, would have represented the legal pathway for other states to follow in opposing ssm.

Cali was a state where all state-level rights were accessible to ss couples via civil unions. So, to many it represented a test. Could marriage-defined-as-man-and-woman-only be reproachable if gays had civil unions? As in, what's in a name?

For the LDS Church, Prop 8 was happenning to Utah's neighbor, one of the most populous states in the nation and a state frequently thought of as a testing ground for the rest of the country:

"As California, so goes the rest of the country..."

Personally as someone quite attuned to the ssm battle in the US between 2003 and 2015, Prop 8 was among the top 3 or 4 biggest publicized, analyzed legal events on ssm: Mass as the first state, the SCOTUS cases as accumulative, and Prop 8--the only one of the 3 where people voted. (DOMA is up there too but began with Clinton earlier.)

 

I understand the politics surrounding Prop 8.  But it wasn't a tipping point in favor of prohibiting SSM (which most assume was the goal of our Church leaders).  Prop 8 was a tipping point in favor of national legal recognition of gay marriage.  So I fail to see your point as to why it was so important for the Church to be involved in it over abortion measures.

[california boy]

Please don't ignore the context of my remark, which was the opening sentence,

 

"First, show us a time when a state was voting on abortion legalization before a federal law allowing it was put into place."

 

Just the mere volume of what you posted of post-Roe initiatives should give a clue that there is a major difference in the two issues.  Thus, it would be folly to exactly compare them.

 

Look at your post and think about it that way.  We know that the country was embroiled in the gay marriage battle before the federal SCOTUS decision this last June, as compared to it being embroiled in the abortion battle ever since Roe V Wade.  Also, You have to consider the political energy invested for and against the ERA, too.

 

Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and so looking at both Roe v Wade and Prop 8 as isolated events is not intellectually honest, whether considering the LDS Church interaction with them or any other factor.

 

So, let's look at Washington in 1970.  According to the link you provided,

 

 

So, if we go by this, we only have one date when the people voted to permit abortion before the landmark SCOTUS decision.  Shall I go look up the numbers on LDS membership in Washington in 1970 compared to California or do you still claim the two voting measures to be equivalent?  Just to give an idea, in 1970 total LDS Church membership, official tally, was roughly 3 million, but was nearly 14 million in 2008.

 

There was a Mormon presence opposing the 1970 Referendum 20 in Washington, by the way.  The newspaper article in the same link mentions a Mormon protestor.  However, neither the main linked article nor the one in the newspaper provide much detail about who made up opposition.  The article has this mention,

 

 

But not much more detail about the opposition, or who made up those "socially conservative Protestant churches."

 

 

So let me see if I have this clear.  The church won't voice objection to abortion directed at the general public if

 

1.  The church's numbers in a state are small.  

 

Does that mean the church has to be a certain size before it publicly gets involved in political issues?  How big does it have to be?  What percentage of members in Washington were there in 1970?  There were only 2% members in California when Prop 8 came up.  So if there was only 1% members in California, the church wouldn't have said anything??  This was about the number of members????  

 

2.  It hasn't been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

 

Even though the abortion ballot measure only effected the state of Washington, and even though that at the time abortion was ILLEGAL in the state of Washington, the church would NOT speak out publicly?  The church doesn't speak out about abortion before it is legal and doesn't speak out about abortion after it is legal.  Got it.  No speaking out about abortion.

 

But if it is about gay marriage, then the church speaks out about it before it is legal (as in the state of Hawaii, AND it speaks out against gay marriage AFTER it is legal.  The Supreme Court of California had ruled that gay marriage was LEGAL under the state constitution.  If it is a gay marriage issue, then the church attacks the issue after it is ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court. Looks like the church is only interested in attacking gay couples who wish to legally marry whether it is legal or not.

 

3. First time on a state ballot:

 

So the church doesn't speak up on a state ballot measure making abortion illegal in that state because it is the first ballot measure on that issue.  But the church DOES speak up on a state ballot measure taking away the civil rights to marry of gay couples.  In both cases, it was the first time both issues were put on a state ballot.  In the first case, the church ignores the abortion ballot measure.  In the second case, the church pours 40 million dollars and countless hours to the ballot measure.  Obviously the church has a thing against gay couples, but not against abortion.  Looks like the church is only interested in attacking gay couples who wish to legally marry.

 

4.  The church doesn't speak up after something becomes the legal law of the land

 

So once abortion was legal, then the church doesn't speak up to the public on abortion.  There have been over 56 times the church could have actively gotten involved in ballot measures concerning abortion since it became legal.  Not once did the church get actively involved.  

 

But gay marriage is ruled to be LEGAL by the Supreme Court of California and even though the courts ruled gay marriage legal, the church mobilizes against a law that was ruled legal to take away that legal right from gay couples.  According to you, once abortion was legal, the church should not get involved in state ballot measures.  Can you explain your thinking to me again on that issue?  Because it seems to me the church is only attacking legal gay couples wanting to legally marry but not attacking legal abortion laws

 

Look.  it became quite clear to everyone that the church wanted to attack gay marriage and they had no such motivation to EVER attack abortion, EVER.  It doesn't really matter personally to me because like most people,  I credit the church in doing the lion's share of the work to pass Prop 8.  By passing Prop 8, the truth about equal rights and constitutional protection went to the federal courts and virtually EVERY federal judge ruled that Prop 8 violated the constitution of the United States. As you know, this finally ended in the Supreme Court decision.   If Prop 8 hadn't have happened, then I seriously doubt that gay marriage would be legal in ever 50 states today.  It was worth the wait for California residents. 

[california boy]

At the time, ssm in 2003 Massachusettes was easy to consider an anomaly. It took years for that "anomaly" to be seconded by California. Then the people tried to hold the court ruling back with Prop 8 itself.

So, Prop 8, if it failed, would be a major shift in political momentum. If it succeeded, however, would have represented the legal pathway for other states to follow in opposing ssm.

 

Well that is demonstratively false.  First, Gay marriage was legalized in Connecticut on Oct 10, 2008 one month prior to Prop 8 passing.  Gay marriage became legal 3 months later in the D. C.  It became legal in Iowa and Vermont in April 2009.  From there it just snowballed.  So if stopping gay marriage in California was suppose to stop gay marriage in the U.S. it also failed miserably.

 

 

Cali was a state where all state-level rights were accessible to ss couples via civil unions. So, to many it represented a test. Could marriage-defined-as-man-and-woman-only be reproachable if gays had civil unions? As in, what's in a name?

For the LDS Church, Prop 8 was happening to Utah's neighbor, one of the most populous states in the nation and a state frequently thought of as a testing ground for the rest of the country:

"As California, so goes the rest of the country..."

Personally as someone quite attuned to the ssm battle in the US between 2003 and 2015, Prop 8 was among the top 3 or 4 biggest publicized, analyzed legal events on ssm: Mass as the first state, the SCOTUS cases as accumulative, and Prop 8--the only one of the 3 where people voted. (DOMA is up there too but began with Clinton earlier.)

 

 

When Prop 8 passed, gay marriage was already legal in the state of California.  Prop 8 didn't prevent gay marriage, it took away the legal right to marry.  Three other states Maine, Maryland, and Washington voted by ballot to legalize gay marriage in 2012, all prior the Supreme Court Ruling.

 

Prop 8 has become the prop heard around the world.  I travel quite a bit in Europe.  The majority of people even in Europe know about Prop 8.  It became a flashpoint not only for this country but for countries throughout the world.  If the church was trying to stop gay marriage, then supporting Prop 8 has to go down as one of the worst failures of church policy in modern times.  

Edited October 14, 2015 by california boy

[changed]

I voted other, as I think it was a loaded question.  

 

Is it more important to spend money on church buildings, or on feeding starving children?

 

Is it more important to spend GC talking about the Holy Spirit, or talking about Gd the Father?

 

Is it more important to go to church on Sunday, or to spend the day in a soup kitchen?

 

All of these questions asked by someone who spends their own money on their own house, does not spend time studying Heavenly Father or any scriptures, who does not spend their Sundays in soup kitchens etc. etc.  

 

It's the age old "You are evil because you have not solved all of the problems in the world" argument.  

 

...For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured ....

[Five Solas]

All of these questions asked by someone who spends their own money on their own house, does not spend time studying Heavenly Father or any scriptures, who does not spend their Sundays...

If that was directed at me, as author of the OP and the questions therein, then please know your above statement isn't fair & it isn't true, 'changed'.  If you were just being hypothetical & off-topic--I'd still appreciate an apology. 

 

It was disparaging, pointless or both. 

 

--Erik